Even without the negotiation, Diplomacy is still this amazing strategy that we call Diplomacy. For me the core element is simultaneous movement followed by the reveal (and the accompanying elation or despair). Each phase is like a mini-game in its own right. That is why it is still satisfying to play even when victories are rare. The player gets to savour lots of mini-victories (and defeats) during the course of the game. Thus for both gunboat and 1vs 1 are still Diplomacy (even if not true to the name).

Typos... amazing strategy *game that we call Diplomacy

I think that diplomacy has three core elements: Strategy, Diplomacy, and Victory
Strategy I define as the tactical movements something emphasized in Gunboat and other non-press or non-press intensive variants. Diplomacy is the communication and negotiation that happens off the board, emphasized in variants like FogofWar and Chaos (because in Chaos you have to convince someone why you are a better neighbor than someone else and why they should be comfortable with you; while in FogofWar you are trying to suck as much information from press as possible.) Then there is Victory which while some variants directly deal with this by removing draw options; this is mainly a personal meter. Every player defines a victory differently for some winning after a stab is dirty while for others it is the way to play. and so on and so on with examples.

I think that this site should focus on making variants which emphasize particular points as if to offer extra training in a particular area, but maintain the classic map. For this reason Chaos, FogofWar, 1v1 and even 3 player games are important. I think that there are so many variants out there but webdiplomacy should use the space we allot to variants to act as a training ground for what is the broader game of diplomacy.

The essence of Diplomacy is negotiation coupled with the understanding that traditional rules of morality don't apply.

Or do they?

Nope

Well after just seeing the most monumentally stupid disband by ally that has ruined the best start I've ever had with Italy, and other clusterf*** moments in that game... I'm really enjoying some one player against another games over at VDiplomacy... England V Turkey, and France and Germany V Russia and Turkey..... simple joyous games without the nonsense

Dear Commander Byron...strategy and tactics are not the same thing...strategy is planning... setting goals etc...then there is the tactical implementation of strategy.. that's the "movement" or other uses of units, the ways units work in groups etc....there can be several tactical choices in implementing a strategic goal. eg Italy..goal ..capture Tunis... Tactical choice..with a fleet or an army ?..what "over arching strategy" is this part of ? that, other factors influence the tactical decisions, ...Will I need a support move ?

@Octavious: That depends what traditional rules of morality your opponent may hold (or is assumed to hold).

Not really. No society on earth has developed a code of morality that matches that experienced in diplomacy, so it goes against all traditional rule sets. Unless you know of a culture who do share the game's morality?

There are times when a tactical victoty can be a strategic error.

The example which one strategist like to tell is in teal war, if you have two units on a front line and one is more organised and better prepared, the other is full o fresh recruits who don't know what they are doing and lacks confidence.

Then your line is attacked. The disorganised unit retreats, while the organised one holds their ground. However the enemy advances and surrounds the organised unit, cutting them off and capturing them. A small tactial victory on the part of the organised unit defending their position and pushing back an enemy advance can lead to a much worse strategic position.

There are similar things you can do in diplomacy, but the combat is very abstracted, making the tactics as simple as possible, while still being highly engaging on a 1v1 level.

So, i'm going to take the extreme position that i don't count, gunboat, 1v1, Chaos, or scoring variants as 'diplomacy' (you can obviously have diplomacy on different maps, but 'pure' loses all geographic nuance - for those who don't know pure, it is 7 player, on 7 SC all connected to each other. No neutrals, no empty spaces, everyone can attack or support everyone else.)

That said, i think gunboat offers an excellent experience (though i don't think it is diplomacy, and i don't play gunboat myself) 1v1 games are great, i like them because they are fast and you get lots of fun out for the amount of time you put in. So my argument for what 'counts' isn't to say what we should allow on this site. Just to understand what different variants we should consider...

Are there any others type of variant, where you can take an aspect of diplomacy and reduce or enjance it to the extreme (map complexity reduce gives pure, i'm not sure about increasingly complex maps...)

*enhance, even.

I'd argue that the most traditional notion of morality is "Always look out for number one" and that certainly applies. But if you believe someone will be truthful in a game of Diplomacy (which has a finite end and few to no repercussions once the game is over).

"Win the battle; lose the war." See also 'Pyrrhic Victory'.

@majormitchell semantics. I use the term strategy because it is an overarching term which does apply to tactics even in your definition tactics are how you approach your strategy. I think have always thought of it that strategy was the planning and tactics was the movements that happen. So strategy can be along the lines of "Open North" and tactics would be what moves specifically are ordered and why. regardless they are directly connected

Ora- I think that my main reason for my proposals which may not be perfect prposals is that the site is trying to lean toward classic dip. so our variants should in theory be about training for classic games. So games which highlight one part of the game really can help players in classic. If you are a player who finds having meaningful press hard then FogofWar should help build your press ability.

I do love fog of war, just as a concept; i'm not sure if anyone has got the coding right.

It would be like playing chess where you could only see the places your pieces can move to... Which may infact be a lot of fun.

I think 'what counts as diplomacy' is important for what this site decides to support. But i'm asking the question out of curiosity. What do you count as diplomacy? Is gunboat even diplomacy? Does the moves and supports seen in a high level gunboat game count as communication? Are people being trained to see players intentions (ie stabs) based on their moves?

And by some length, what isn't diplomacy?

Well for me I think there are 2 definitions of diplomacy. A) The game as described by avalon hill in all it's glory. B) variants that highlight various parts of diplomacy without adding unnecessary extras.

for example UN games while fun to me are a totally different game; better yet there are variants on Vdip which add economic goals to diplomacy and to me that is a whole new game. I like to keep my definitions simple and flexible so it may not be so easy to understand where I would dry the line, but thats the point.

"It would be like playing chess where you could only see the places your pieces can move to... Which may infact be a lot of fun."

IIRC there is a chess variant called "Kriegspiel" which requires 3 boards. Two opponents face back to back and control their own boards. One referee controls the other and tells players whether their moves are valid or not, and lets both know when a piece (and its type) has been captured. Did this in college a couple times. Pretty fun!

I think anything can be legitimately called a Diplomacy variant (and be suitable for this site), if the basic rules of the game are identical. These include order adjudication, control of supply centers, builds and disbands, and victory condition (50%+1 SC = solo). Maps (non-Classic), visible information (Fog of War) and even communication/press types (gunboat, public, etc) are all acceptable as variants because those are all tools to achieve the victory condition.

@'Kriegspiel' - cool :)

i wonder is there also a version of chess where moves are written down and you reveal them simultaneously...

@jeff, why do the basic rules have to be kept the same? can't we vary the end conditions (like take a random game and re-play from 1906 to the end, with new victory conditions - now you have to do better than the original player who played your country...)

Why not have optional variation of the disband rules? or similar...